ReviewIntensive care medicine experimental2026
Effect of vasopressin and its analogues on microcirculatory perfusion: a systematic review.
Review in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveArginine vasopressin (AVP) is a non-adrenergic vasopressor increasingly used in the management of shock. While it restores arterial pressure, its effects on the microcirculation remain uncertain, with potential for reduced regional perfusion and tissue oxygenation. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effects of intravenous AVP and its analogues on microcirculatory perfusion across different haemodynamic conditions and vascular beds.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted. Animal and human publications evaluating the effects of intravenous AVP or analogues on microcirculatory perfusion assessed with in vivo microcirculatory imaging or flowmetry techniques were included. Publications were grouped by haemodynamic condition and vascular bed.
resultsOf 1693 records, 39 publications (31 animal, 7 human, 1 combined) were included, comprising 43 study-units and 152 individual measurements. Overall perfusion was decreased in 33%, unchanged in 48%, and increased in 19% of measurements, compared with baseline, saline, or other vasopressors. By haemodynamic condition, perfusion was decreased/unchanged/increased (n=study-units; % of measurements) in physiological conditions (n = 14: 57/38/4), vasodilatory or septic shock (n = 23: 24/55/21; versus baseline, fluid resuscitation or noradrenaline), haemorrhagic shock (n = 3: 17/17/67; versus baseline, saline or noradrenaline), cardiac dysfunction or arrest (n = 2: 0/67/33; versus adrenaline or noradrenaline) and cirrhosis-related portal hypertension (n = 1: 0/0/100). Across vascular beds: gastrointestinal tract (n = 18: 30/42/27), kidney (n = 9: medulla 77/23/0, cortex 27/64/9), sublingual bed (n = 7: 19/68/13), cerebral cortex (n = 2: 0/67/33), cutaneous bed (n = 6: 42/42/17), and conjunctiva (n = 1, 100/0/0).
conclusionAVP and its analogues reduced microcirculatory perfusion most consistently under physiological conditions, whereas effects in vasodilatory or septic shock were more heterogeneous. Across vascular beds, the highest proportion of measurements showing reduced perfusion was in the renal medulla. These results highlight the divergent effects of vasopressin across vascular beds and clinical conditions.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.